fresco-
I'm inclined to think that the horse Consumer Society is by Mass Production out of Official Panic.
Freud is a very interesting character as are a number of his apostate disciples.
I once did a cursory study of names.Proust gives the word some prominence.I started with a comparison between Czech and Polish male and female names where an obvious difference exists.
It resulted in the idea that a sound male name is one syllable with a hardish vowel such as Bill (Willie) or Dick.A stabby sound.And a good female name has the maximum no of syllables in the shortest space such as Fiona.There was a Fiona,if you might remember,who wrote a series of articles in a fairly popular glossy magazine a few years back.She was quite feminine I thought.If they go by such things as Philomena it might hint at femininity over extended periods of time.
Have you a favourite female name and does it conjure up a web of meanings in a similar,though possibly, more advanced manner than "hopsters"?
fresco,
So you are advocating an inter-subjective reality?
Ray,
Yes of course. "Reality" is mediated by common languages. It is only "questioned" within that language. At the most basic level our common physiology/perceptual apparatus will "segment" reality according to our species requirements. Over and above that we have socio-cultural conditioning with socio-syncratic classifications. (E.g. Dogs may be considered as "food"...Women may be "possessions" etc).
fresco,
There is much that I want to debate, but I think you know where I stand on this. A person's notion of reality may be influenced to a certain extent by social criteria, but a reality that is independent is there, and our senses provide a direct representation of it, with our rational faculty providing the means to connect information together. A dog may be considered as "food" for some people, but that is associating desireable functions to a noun. Noone will say that there is no dog there. As to certain societies believing that women are "possessions," I think that that viewpoint is wrong, even if I disregard my North American viewpoint.
Ray,
We are not going to agree, but I offer for your consideration 1. The four colours of the rainbow of medieval times 2. A child pointing to a cat and saying "doggie". 3. A comment from a muslim on TV "Why don't you make your women cover up".
I suggest that a "thing" is no more than an expectancy of a relationship and that this expectancy is embodied in its "name".
i believe that all titles are lables that things have no name but only spirit and character.
pseudokinetics, can you elaborate?
fresco,
this is all semantics.
Also, we don't know what the person on TV meant by putting "your" in there. It may have been to indicate "your community's." Let's say that he does have an expectation for women to be "possessions," if one day he decides that women are not "possessions," would he call women not "women"? There is a level of expectation attached to certain concepts, but the concept do not necessarily have to require these expectations to exist. This is besides what I mean by reality anyways.
Ah, the idea that reality is linked to language. Wasn't that an idea exploited by in the famous novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four?
by saying "dog" that is a label we gave that mammal, and mammal is a label also.
